Started By
Message
1
Posted on 12/9/24 at 4:08 pm to SummerOfGeorge
Boise vs SMU in the Tard Fight Bowl.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 4:09 pm to Lgrnwd
OP is wrong and posted no proof. Someone else did post facts that refuted him.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 4:21 pm to Dawg4Life47
quote:
We should just go ahead and play the GA/Oregon game, it's likely headed there anyways
If it were BCS we would.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 4:24 pm to Opry
quote:
OP is wrong and posted no proof. Someone else did post facts that refuted him.
Opry is wrong and ignored the proof I posted along with the proof the poster SummerofGeorge posted.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 4:35 pm to Lgrnwd
SOS is important but you have to have even records for it to come into effect.
Bama having 3 losses null and voided the SOS variable.
Bama having 3 losses null and voided the SOS variable.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 4:37 pm to Lgrnwd
quote:
All ranked ahead of Alabama, USCE, and Ole Miss at the end of the 12 game regular season.
Interesting. So I guess SOS didn’t matter in the BCS era either?
Aside from it not actually being true:
The BCS formula no longer exists and can't be replicated. The simulated BCS is just an attempt to do so. But some of the rankings no longer exist, and the rankings they use are NOT the same formulas that were used in the BCS.
You might think - well Sagarin was part of the BCS, so it must be the same. The answer is no, it's no where near the same. In fact, one of the reasons I don't even pay attention to Sagarin is there is a decent chance you aren't even seeing the same formula week to week. But the one used in the BCS was different and set.
SoS was also a hotly debated topic. Because you had teams like Boise St who would come in an not get many losses, and the computers would typically over-rank teams like that due to not applying SoS enough.
They also didn't really use opponent adjusted stats and such. MoV was maxed at 14, etc.
It was the entire reason I did my own rankings back in the mid 2000s. You had Boise St fans talking about how they deserved and others saying no. So I did my own opponent adjust stats to find out. Spoiler: Boise St did not belong. A Boise St fan even helped me come up with the ranking part of the algo.
And finally - only the top2 mattered for the most part outside bowl stuff.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 4:38 pm to Lgrnwd
Honestly, the BCS system pretty much got things right all in all.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 4:43 pm to 3down10
quote:
Aside from it not actually being true:
It is true. I along with SummerofGeorge posted the proof.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 4:45 pm to thunderbird1100
quote:
Having a combination of computer rankings + some human element would be a great idea. Going 1 way or the other seems like a bad idea.
This was the BCS. 2 human polls, 6 computer polls.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 4:48 pm to Lgrnwd
STOP MAKING SENSE
Posted on 12/9/24 at 4:52 pm to Opry
quote:
OP is wrong and posted no proof. Someone else did post facts that refuted him.
/thread
Posted on 12/9/24 at 4:56 pm to theballguy
Once again I along with SummerofGeorge posted the proof in this thread. Unless you think 247 sports is lying also
Posted on 12/9/24 at 5:01 pm to joshnorris14
quote:
This was the BCS. 2 human polls, 6 computer polls.
The computer polls aren't the same. Unless they've started to recreate them and I missed it, it's not the same formulas. They had restrictions and rules put on them, which most either did with separate BCS results, or just got rid of completely after the BCS ended.
And they have most likely been updated/change tons of times since then as well.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 5:04 pm to Lgrnwd
quote:
Once again I along with SummerofGeorge posted the proof in this thread. Unless you think 247 sports is lying also
I mean he corrected you and then you edited.
But ok.
Either way, I was looking at the final results because I apparently looked over it and didn't expect you to quote old rankings.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 5:06 pm to narddogg81
quote:
auto bids it nonsense when they conferences are so different in strength
They're all equal in strength.
You think SMU can't beat Alabama? I bet you thought Vandy couldn't beat Alabama either. You're thinking of a by-gone era before NIL and free agency leveled the playing field.
But more importantly, the conferences are all equal in strength as far as the NCAA is concerned. This is required by law, otherwise it'd be an anti-trust violation.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 5:12 pm to Harry Boutte
quote:
They're all equal in strength.
You think SMU can't beat Alabama? I bet you thought Vandy couldn't beat Alabama either. You're thinking of a by-gone era before NIL and free agency leveled the playing field.
But more importantly, the conferences are all equal in strength as far as the NCAA is concerned. This is required by law, otherwise it'd be an anti-trust violation.
quote:
Member since Oct 2024
Wow, most people don't find this forum the same day they start watching college football.
They are not equal in strength or anywhere close to it.
The best team doesn't always win, and that's the problem with teams that don't play a tough SoS. If all it takes is for you to get 1 win, then nobody knows if it was a fluke or not.
And finally, the NCAA is not in control of the FBS national championship title. National Championships are awarded by various other organizations.
And even if they were, treating schools equally is not the same as pretending all schools are equal or as if they have to pretend 1 conference is equal to another.
What are they teaching in schools these days?
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 5:14 pm
Posted on 12/9/24 at 5:13 pm to 3down10
quote:
The computer polls aren't the same. Unless they've started to recreate them and I missed it, it's not the same formulas. They had restrictions and rules put on them, which most either did with separate BCS results, or just got rid of completely after the BCS ended.
They still exist, and I'm not sure what restrictions you are referring to. Regardless his point was that there should be a combination approach, which is exactly what the BCS was
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 5:15 pm
Posted on 12/9/24 at 5:14 pm to Lgrnwd
People forget the BCS was 2/3rd human polls and 1/3 computers, so it really was just the human polls with a little computers mixed in.
THe first 6 or so years of the BCS it had a much more mathematical formula but after USC was left out in 2023 they revised it to make the polls the dominant factor.
THe first 6 or so years of the BCS it had a much more mathematical formula but after USC was left out in 2023 they revised it to make the polls the dominant factor.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 5:22 pm to 3down10
quote:
I mean he corrected you and then you edited. But ok. Either way, I was looking at the final results because I apparently looked over it and didn't expect you to quote old rankings.
The only thing I changed was the Arizona St part and I acknowledged that mistake. The point still stands without Arizona St.
In the op I specifically referred to the BCS formula rankings from before the Championship games because that was when all the teams in question had played the same number of games.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News